[1] We heard these three appeals together given the commonality of issues in the questions of law raised for our determination. In simple terms, the common issues invite an obvious and identical question of whether the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("the CIPAA" for short) which came into force on 15 April 2014 is to be construed as having a retrospective or prospective operation. Quite apart from this question, however, one matter deserves early mention, which is that in these appeals, there are several other questions of law raised by the appellant in respect of which this court had allowed their application for leave to appeal. Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-126-12-2018(W) (the 126 Appeal), at the outset had indicated to this court that submission would be made on the 126 Appeal only since Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-124-12-2018(W) ("the 124 Appeal") and Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-125-12-2018(W) ("the 125 Appeal") involved identical issue and he would deal with the question in connection with this common issue first. If it is determined that the CIPAA is intended to be prospective, all other questions of law w